Agenda Item
e. Central Office Assessment Conducted by Research Triangle Institute (RTI) ~ Updated 7.13.2026
Summary: Presented by: Mrs. Tasha Davis-Mills, Chief of Human Resources Officer, Division of Human Resources,
Mr. Byron Schueneman, Chief Financial Officer, Division of Finance,
Mr. Michael Martin, Director of Strategic Consulting, Center for Education, Communication, and Training for RTI International
Central Office Organizational
Assessment
DeKalb School Board Updates
Kristana Rogers, Ed.D
Kyle Canuette
LaChawn Smith, Ed.D
Mike Martin
www.rti.org RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute. RTI and the RTI logo are U.S. registered trademarks of Research Triangle Institute.
Agenda
o Overview of the Report
Purpose and Scope | Methodology
o Framing
DCSD Context | Anticipated Uses
o Findings and Considerations from the Report
Comparison Analysis | Considerations and Options
o Discussion
2
Overview of the Report
Purpose
o Grounded in the primary purpose: Ensuring that students learn and schools
have the resources and assistance they need
Focus:
o Structuring for efficiency and effectiveness
o Aligning support to priorities and needs of schools
o Unearthing redundancies, gaps, or unclear responsibilities
3
Why Conduct a Central Office Organizational Assessment?
o Understand how DCSD central office is structured and staffed
compared to comparison districts
o Surface areas where roles, responsibilities, or routines may
lack clarity or need improvement
o Establish an evidence base to inform future strategic decision-
making
This work matters: Central Offices have an important role to play in
enabling schools, educators and, therefore students, to thrive.
4
Overview of the Report
Methodology o 10 peer districts benchmarked against DCSD (Georgia +
o Two main sources of data: national)
o Compared: central office staffing footprint,
Comparison cabinet/division structure, and functional distribution of
roles
Districts
o Sources: position files, org charts, district data
o Executive interviews, central office focus groups,
principal focus groups and open-ended
questionnaire for central office
o Explored how the organization works in practice —
Interviews and roles, coordination, decision-making, systems, and
Focus Groups school support
o Sources: firsthand stakeholder perspectives, analyzed
for recurring patterns — organizational themes, not
individual performance
5
Framing
DCSD Context
• Dedicated staff working on behalf of students
• Change has been the constant in the last several years
• Districts are facing significant budget pressures
Anticipated Uses
• To inform priorities and planning, especially as related to upcoming 27-28
budget planning
• To provide data and considerations that can drive long-term decisions about
structure, processes, and leadership priorities for the central office
This report should be one of many data sources to guide decision-making about priorities and
does not report on quality or effectiveness of individual staff, full district history, variations in
outsourced services, or informal leadership and influence.
6
Comparative Analysis Findings
Key Findings: How DCSD Compares to Peers
The report benchmarks DCSD’s central office Limitations
against 10 peer districts in Georgia and
nationally, controlling for size (FTE per 1,000 No two districts report personnel data
the same way. Where gaps existed, the
students). The following slides synopsize the
study team applied a consistent coding
findings across six lenses:
framework grounded in publicly available
• Overall central office staffing size sources and documented every
assumption made along the way.
• Functional-area staffing relative to district size
Personnel files and organizational charts
• Cabinet composition and comparison can describe how a central office is
• How peer districts structure their cabinets structured but cannot fully explain why.
Service delivery models, historical
• Division structure decisions, and local context sit behind
• Departmental analysis every number in this analysis.
7
Comparative Analysis Findings
Comparison Districts and Enrollment and Number Schools
District State Enrollment # of School Sites
DCSD GA 91,638 138
Baltimore MD 76,807 159
Charlotte-Mecklenburg NC 141,480 185
Cobb GA 105,213 112
Denver CO 139,776 228
Dallas TX 85,315 198
Fulton GA 86,839 102
Griffin-Spalding GA 9,175 18
Gwinnett GA 182,688 142
Muscogee GA 29,073 56
Wake NC 161,027 203
8
Comparative Analysis Findings
Overall Central Office Staffing Size
What we found District FTE / 1,000
• Budgeted staffing of 29.9 FTE per 1,000 students — Denver 31.6
3rd highest of 10 peers Dallas 30.0
• On a filled-positions basis, 26.2 FTE per 1,000 — still DCSD 29.9
above most comparable districts
Muscogee 26.4
• A higher ratio is not proof of overstaffing, but the
footprint warrants examining how staff are Fulton 22.4
distributed Gwinnett 20.0
Charlotte-Mecklenburg 18.4
Wake 16.9
Griffin-Spalding 15.8
Baltimore 13.7
Figure 6. Budgeted FTE per 1,000 students.
9
Comparative Analysis Findings
Functional-Area Staffing Relative to District Size
Defining Functional Areas
Because districts name and structure their departments and divisions differently, the RTI team established
fourteen Functional areas. These categories allowed the team to organize all central office positions into
comparable groupings across districts—such as Human Resources, Information Technology, or Operations and
Auxiliary Services—allowing staffing levels to be measured consistently.
What we found
• Operations is the largest area in every district; DCSD is highest at 14.33 FTE per 1,000, which may be driven in
part by smaller schools and in-sourced transportation.
• School Leadership & Principal Supervision is where DCSD sits farthest above peers with 1.93 FTE per 1,000.
The closest peers are Baltimore (1.48), Dallas (1.22), and CMS (1.14).
• Access, equity & opportunity functional area (0.97) is 2nd-highest however, in DCSD, this area includes
functions not typically included (e.g. athletics, charters)
• 57% of non-operations central office capacity is directed toward school- and student-facing functions, fourth
among comparison districts.
Figure 8. School- and student-facing vs. internal-facing FTE per 1,000.
10
Comparative Analysis Findings
Cabinet Composition and Comparison
What we found District Cabinet Size
• DCSD’s 15-member cabinet is the largest in the DCSD 15
sample; Charlotte-Mecklenburg 12
• Comparable-enrollment peers run smaller cabinets Baltimore 10
— Fulton 6, Denver 8 Dallas 10
• Organizational mass is uneven: the COO division Gwinnett 10
alone holds 1,313 of 2,742 total FTE Muscogee 9
• 8 of the 14 non-operations divisions carry fewer than Denver 8
130 FTE each Cobb 7
Griffin-Spalding 7
Wake 7
Fulton 6
Figure 9. Cabinet size comparison.
11
Comparative Analysis Findings
Division Structure: Where DCSD Differs
• Specialized services, wraparound support, and Access & Opportunity split
student support across three cabinet verticals (443 FTE)
• No integrating role sits between those functions and the superintendent
• Six of nine peers consolidate specialized student services and
wraparound support under one leader
• Access & Opportunity combines charter oversight, student assignment,
athletics, and mentorship — a mix no peer mirrors
• Communications sits beneath a broader engagement and partnerships
division
12
Comparative Analysis Findings
Departmental Analysis: Selected Highlights
Principal Supervision Other departments
• 7 area offices carry 108 FTE of embedded • Professional development and leadership
development live in the area structure and separate
coordinators (ELA, math, ELL, special ed, mental from other talent development programs such as
health, culture & climate) IGNITE and from teaching and learning;
• This mirrors expertise that also exists centrally — a • Early Learning carries just 6 FTE despite one of
parallel structure unique in the sample Georgia’s largest pre-K programs
• Special Education (139 FTE) reflects service-model
• Charlotte-Mecklenburg, Dallas, and Wake each
choices to distribute more roles to school sites.
carry meaningful school support FTE but
organized primarily as instructional specialists or • DCSD's Information Technology division carries 208
FTE, placing it third in the sample on a per-student
coordinating teachers rather than coordinators. basis; The IT Support Services Department is the
largest within IT.
13
Considerations
o The report identifies 9 considerations informed by the evidence collected
o Report seeks to balance providing leadership options to consider with the
understanding and humility that the district leadership will drive decisions within a
larger context and continued conversations
Decisions are not simple; there are advantages and risks when proposing change; Actions taken
informed by this report will be best accomplished with deliberation, empathy toward staff, and a
steadfast focus on what is best for students.
14
Considerations
Cabinet Structure and the Coordination of
Consideration 1
Related Functions (Structure)
Options for Action
o Create an integrating executive, e.g., deputy superintendent
o Consolidate into fewer, broader cabinet portfolios
o Formalize cross-cabinet coordination
15
Considerations
Consideration 2 Division and Department Alignment
(Structure)
Options for Action
o Consolidate student support function (students services and wrap around)
under a single leader
o Redistribute access and opportunity portfolio
o Focus on the communication function in the Community Engagement and
Innovative Partnerships portfolio
o Consider consolidating potentially similar roles
16
Considerations
Coordination Between Area Offices and Central
Consideration 3
Departments in Schools and Leadership (Structure +
Process)
Options for Action
o Shift reporting lines for embedded coordinators from area
offices to central departments
o Refine districtwide coordination structures
o Standardize area office structures and expectations
17
Considerations
Professional Learning and Talent Development as a
Consideration 4
Coherent District Strategy (Structure)
Options for Action
o Establish a unified talent-development strategy
o Consolidate the professional learning continuum under a
single cabinet area
18
Considerations
Clarity in Cross-Divisional Roles, Ownership, and
Consideration 5
Accountability (Process)
Options for Action
o Map ownership and decision rights for recurring cross-
divisional work
o Develop a central office navigation resource for schools
o Define ownership at the outset of cross-divisional
initiatives
19
Considerations
Durable Structures for Cross-Divisional Collaboration
Consideration 6
(Culture + Process)
Options for Action
o Create standing cross-divisional structures for recurring
work
o Adopt early-involvement protocols for shared decisions
o Refine the district's coordinated communication model
for schools
20
Considerations
Streamlined Decision-Making and Reduced
Consideration 7
Unnecessary Approval Layers (Process + Culture)
Options for Action
o Clarify decision tiers and delegation of authority
o Reduce approval steps for routine transactions
o Enable more direct communication across levels and
divisions
o Assign a single accountable owner for implementation
21
Considerations
Operational Systems and Workflows
Consideration 8
(Process)
Options for Action
o Map and streamline high-burden workflows
o Modernize tools and reduce duplicate data entry across systems
o Establish consistent standard operating procedures
o Align approval requirements to risk and value
22
Considerations
School Support Model and Access to Expertise (Process
Consideration 9
+ Culture)
Options for Action
o Clarify communication protocols within the support model
o Preserve direct access to specialized expertise
o Define shared roles between functional divisions and Schools
& Leadership
o Establish a feedback loop with principals on responsiveness
23